Still completely disagree. The gamepad is an optional game enhancing add on for the vast majority if games. Me and you appreciating those features and enjoying them is just as relevant to as some one arguing 3d is critical to the 3ds.

3 games that I'm aware of require a second screen. A game like Lego city doesn't need to be patched but I would appreciate if it was. I would love to play that game off tv too.

Nintendo land, game and Wario, and wii party u are about as successful and important to the console overal as the kinect library. Turning the gamepad in to an optional add on has the exact same effect on the game library. Motion plus has the same effect. The entire history of the wii has had this same effect of multiple control schemes and varying controller support. The entire history of console gaming has had this effect since rob and gyromite.

Even if Zelda requires it it's an add on. Shell out the cash if you want it no one will complain. They didn't for skyward sword. The major advantage that makes it less critical is you can add a gamepad to "1s" wii u but you can't add 3d to a 2ds.

Sony had no issues releasing a psp with no disc drive. Split install bases and incompatibility are just part of the console landscape.

All the info I see says wii u is sold at a small loss as of now. I don't know how much the loss was when there was basic and deluxe models or which was more of a loss.

Regardless the reason it makes sense is they can't drop the price but they really need to drop it. The only option is taking out the gamepad and making it optional and letting the console succeed on 1 screen games and the gamepad succeed on 2 screen games and off tv. There is no need to risk the gamepads inflated cost hurting the console. Let the gamepad succeed on its own merit.

The expensive bundles add on is going down in history as a mistake made by sony and Nintendo this gen. They both need to course correct and let their add on succeed based on merit and not because you force everyone to buy it.

Still completely disagree. The gamepad is an optional game enhancing add on for the vast majority if games. Me and you appreciating those features and enjoying them is just as relevant to as some one arguing 3d is critical to the 3ds.

3 games that I'm aware of require a second screen. A game like Lego city doesn't need to be patched but I would appreciate if it was. I would love to play that game off tv too.

Nintendo land, game and Wario, and wii party u are about as successful and important to the console overal as the kinect library. Turning the gamepad in to an optional add on has the exact same effect on the game library. Motion plus has the same effect. The entire history of the wii has had this same effect of multiple control schemes and varying controller support. The entire history of console gaming has had this effect since rob and gyromite.

Even if Zelda requires it it's an add on. Shell out the cash if you want it no one will complain. They didn't for skyward sword. The major advantage that makes it less critical is you can add a gamepad to "1s" wii u but you can't add 3d to a 2ds.

You're forgetting that this is So Early in the lifecycle of the Wii U - everyone can make claims that one tack or the other will increase sales, and who can distinguish one cash grab from another?

Problem is, I can make the same exact argument for simply allowing events to play out; by definition Nintendo's console sales will increase. So I hereby ascribe to the Passage of Time method of improving Nintendo's outlook for the Wii U. And guess what? I circumvent the many page declaration of how your suggestion will inconvenience Nintendo and its customers.

@blaisedinsd
Haha. PSP Go is considered a failure. Memory stick duo was expensive and all the games weren't available on PS Store.

That's probably the worst example you could have used, and you just did.

EDIT: Also, Sony backed the GamePad by requiring PS Vita off-TV or second screen features. That still won't get PS Vita consoles into everyone's hands, and that's an entirely different market that they've tied to one another.

@blaisedinsd
The PSPGo was a failure for a start. Also the fact that it was a digital-only platform at least in theory didn't mean that you suddenly couldn't play the major PSP games to their full extent. It would be like if they made a digital-only 3DS, you wouldn't really be missing out on anything in terms of software. You could still play all of the major titles to their full extent.

And no, again, the GamePad is not the same as the 3D effect on the 3DS. Repeating it will not change that fact.

[edit: merging the two posts]
Oh, and another thought about the Kinect. The Kinect bundle was an SKU built with extras intended to appeal to the more casual consumer. It was also priced aggressively even though it had that extra hardware. A casual consumer entering the market would get the Kinect bundle because it was cheap. If the Kinect is like the GamePad in any way it's the fact the GamePad enables games that might not be as "traditional". If anyone is interested in the GamePad it's the consumers at the lower end of the market.

Making the cheaper SKU ignore the GamePad fails to recognise that fact. The person who is wanting the cheaper SKU is more likely to want the GamePad-centric games, the cheaper SKU therefore needs the GamePad more than the others do. The sort of gamer who's not sold on the idea is more than happy to pay more, they don't care about the price anywhere near as much. The people who rage about how bad the GamePad is are the same people who buy a game every single month of the year. So if there is to be an SKU that appeals to the gamer not sold on the GamePad it should be an SKU that comes at a premium but includes more than one controller.

Still completely disagree. The gamepad is an optional game enhancing add on for the vast majority if games. Me and you appreciating those features and enjoying them is just as relevant to as some one arguing 3d is critical to the 3ds.

3 games that I'm aware of require a second screen. A game like Lego city doesn't need to be patched but I would appreciate if it was. I would love to play that game off tv too.

Nintendo land, game and Wario, and wii party u are about as successful and important to the console overal as the kinect library. Turning the gamepad in to an optional add on has the exact same effect on the game library. Motion plus has the same effect. The entire history of the wii has had this same effect of multiple control schemes and varying controller support. The entire history of console gaming has had this effect since rob and gyromite.

Even if Zelda requires it it's an add on. Shell out the cash if you want it no one will complain. They didn't for skyward sword. The major advantage that makes it less critical is you can add a gamepad to "1s" wii u but you can't add 3d to a 2ds.

You're forgetting that this is So Early in the lifecycle of the Wii U - everyone can make claims that one tack or the other will increase sales, and who can distinguish one cash grab from another?

Problem is, I can make the same exact argument for simply allowing events to play out; by definition Nintendo's console sales will increase. So I hereby ascribe to the Passage of Time method of improving Nintendo's outlook for the Wii U. And guess what? I circumvent the many page declaration of how your suggestion will inconvenience Nintendo and its customers.

It's early in the consoles life cycle but the console is on life support. I am pretty sure it's performing worst than n64 and gamecube.

We need to ask why the wii was successful. One it's gimmic was more compelling and two it was the budget family friendly option. Wii u needs a price drop to grab the only market from wii it has a chance to retain. This is the most painless way to get that price cut.

The math that actually matters is the game pad inflates the consoles cost by more than 33%. We know this from the components breakdown.

@blaisedinsd
The PSPGo was a failure for a start. Also the fact that it was a digital-only platform at least in theory didn't mean that you suddenly couldn't play the major PSP games to their full extent. It would be like if they made a digital-only 3DS, you wouldn't really be missing out on anything in terms of software. You could still play all of the major titles to their full extent.

And no, again, the GamePad is not the same as the 3D effect on the 3DS. Repeating it will not change that fact.

[edit: merging the two posts]
Oh, and another thought about the Kinect. The Kinect bundle was an SKU built with extras intended to appeal to the more casual consumer. It was also priced aggressively even though it had that extra hardware. A casual consumer entering the market would get the Kinect bundle because it was cheap. If the Kinect is like the GamePad in any way it's the fact the GamePad enables games that might not be as "traditional". If anyone is interested in the GamePad it's the consumers at the lower end of the market.

Making the cheaper SKU ignore the GamePad fails to recognise that fact. The person who is wanting the cheaper SKU is more likely to want the GamePad-centric games, the cheaper SKU therefore needs the GamePad more than the others do. The sort of gamer who's not sold on the idea is more than happy to pay more, they don't care about the price anywhere near as much. The people who rage about how bad the GamePad is are the same people who buy a game every single month of the year. So if there is to be an SKU that appeals to the gamer not sold on the GamePad it should be an SKU that comes at a premium but includes more than one controller.

This is all irrelevant. Letting consumer choice dictate the success of the gamepad and the console seperaterly is the smartest thing to do at this point.

I don't see a risk. The 1 screen sku may not succeed because if it's lesser library of games, but anyone buying it would have nothing to complain about. People who bought a wii u with a gamepad would have nothing to complain about. Because of that their is nothing to lose.

We are debating silly abstract concepts when we aha it's not like the 2ds or it's like kinect or it's like wii motion plus. Bottom line no one would have reason to complain if they did it, it wouldn't kill gamepad support. That's a wildly exaggerated irrational fear. No one who doesn't but a gamepad is going to be angry they didn't buy a gamepad. You can cry how critical the gamepad is but if you own a console you know to nice for some things but it's entirely non essential. The gamepad does not really make Zombi u or Lego city better. Off tv play is a superior feature for me, I would trade all the gamepad hooks for off tv play. The other 3 games Nintendo land is the best and it's strength is 3 or 4 multiplayer games. Speaking of split user bases how many people are angry they don't have enough motion plus for metroid and Zelda multiplayer?

I think the discussion has run it's course. We understand each other's view points and disagree.

Really all I ask you to consider is if it happens what reason would you have to panic? Sure the internet would be singing the gamepad is dead, but if they have miyamoto working on a single player gamepad experience we might get a killer wii music sequel and that will show them.

The gamepad is basically dead regardless as far as it being a game changer for gameplay or appeal. It's a nice non-essential feature that increased cost 33% that actually repels some customers. Games are not supporting it, that's normal for a launch gimmic. We have quick boot and iwata saying he told miyamoto to make a single player game to look forward to as far as support. You didn't actually think the gimmic was a game changer did you? You can't seriously think it just needs more time to become that?

Games will sell wii u, not the gamepad. The gamepad makes it harder to sell games because of 33% increase in the consoles cost. Microsoft has made the same mistake but it's more disastrous behind they compete directly with sony.

Also, in terms of funding, the Wii U is not even near being on life support.

. The point was not the success or failure of psp go, I was only pointing out another example out of many from the beginning of the console industry where a company did not care about releasing something that split a userbase or played a sub library of games.

Game boy pocket had compatibility issues. The Nes too loader did too. Ps2 slim as well. It's hard to find an example where it didn't happen. Wii u is already split among myriad controller options and varying support.

You're forgetting that this is So Early in the lifecycle of the Wii U - everyone can make claims that one tack or the other will increase sales, and who can distinguish one cash grab from another?

Problem is, I can make the same exact argument for simply allowing events to play out; by definition Nintendo's console sales will increase. So I hereby ascribe to the Passage of Time method of improving Nintendo's outlook for the Wii U. And guess what? I circumvent the many page declaration of how your suggestion will inconvenience Nintendo and its customers.

It's early in the consoles life cycle but the console is on life support. I am pretty sure it's performing worst than n64 and gamecube.

We need to ask why the wii was successful. One it's gimmic was more compelling and two it was the budget family friendly option. Wii u needs a price drop to grab the only market from wii it has a chance to retain. This is the most painless way to get that price cut.

The math that actually matters is the game pad inflates the consoles cost by more than 33%. We know this from the components breakdown.

The Wii is not the Wii U, it may take Nintendo to hell and back to prove it...

You must not fully appreciate what's at stake for Nintendo here. This is an all out war on the console battlefield, with Nintendo adopting its own ingenious method to combat the other consoles. It doesn't matter if they introduce another SKU or not, the appeal and strength of the console are dictated by its hardware. That has always been Nintendo's stance.

I will look for the advent of your prognostications after the battle has persevered awhile.
For the console to compete on price alone it would have to be an utter derelict-- if Nintendo cannot make the games to move systems and motivate sales the console will be truly dead. Then you can charge whatever you like! If this is another Virtual Boy and that becomes apparent to Nintendo, this whole track will have to be abandoned.

Overall the success of the wii u is not too relevant to me personally as I know Nintendo will support it.

Having faith in the gamepad as something that will resurrect the wii u at this point just seems silly to me. Has anything like that ever happened? There is no evidence of this happening in the past. The wii u does not have any of the advantages of the wii. Price is the issue, the console is competing with ps3 and 360 more than the new consoles at this point and it losing.
Imagine if this was their strategy with ROB.
I think the gamepad has seen its period of heaviest support.

Xbone and wii u will drop the requirement if their expensive add ons eventually. It will be remembered as a mistake to try to require them and we won't see such a strategy again.

I am pretty sure nintendos stance is that games sell hardware. This is what Reggie says. We see the games coming we bought the console for and they are not using the gamepad. Iwatas gamepad focus strategy makes no sense as a singular strategy. It makes the most sense to split the user base and admit the gp is not necessary to the console. No matter how much you wish it's necessary it just isn't.

I think the discussion has run it's course. We understand each other's view points and disagree.Really all I ask you to consider is if it happens what reason would you have to panic? Sure the internet would be singing the gamepad is dead, but if they have miyamoto working on a single player gamepad experience we might get a killer wii music sequel and that will show them.

i.e. "I'm losing thie argument but let me just get that last jab in there"
Classy

The point was not the success or failure of psp go, I was only pointing out another example out of many from the beginning of the console industry where a company did not care about releasing something that split a userbase or played a sub library of games. Game boy pocket had compatibility issues. The Nes too loader did too. Ps2 slim as well. It's hard to find an example where it didn't happen. Wii u is already split among myriad controller options and varying support.

The fact is that the PSPGo's lack of software support had nothing to do with the hardware itself. It had more to do with the fact that the thing didn't sell because of the price point. It was more expensive than the standard PSP and lacked the ability to play games in the physical format. Completely different to what you're saying here because it was physically capable of playing every single PSP game with zero alterations.

The NES top-loader was a revision late in the life of the NES along the lines of the Wii Mini. It's actually the better system to get because it's less prone to faults. The GameBoy Pocket I remember my sister had, I don't remember any problems with that. They changed the link-cable size which was then carried over to the GBC but other than that I can't think of anything. The PS2 Slim I know nothing about but googling just now I can't see anything noteworthy.

I can't see any example where any company has done something of this scale for even backwards compatibility with a new console let alone a console revision or a little bundle change.

The person who is wanting the cheaper SKU is more likely to want the GamePad-centric games, the cheaper SKU therefore needs the GamePad more than the others do. The sort of gamer who's not sold on the idea is more than happy to pay more, they don't care about the price anywhere near as much. The people who rage about how bad the GamePad is are the same people who buy a game every single month of the year. So if there is to be an SKU that appeals to the gamer not sold on the GamePad it should be an SKU that comes at a premium but includes more than one controller.

This is all irrelevant. Letting consumer choice dictate the success of the gamepad and the console seperaterly is the smartest thing to do at this point.

I don't see a risk. The 1 screen sku may not succeed because if it's lesser library of games, but anyone buying it would have nothing to complain about. People who bought a wii u with a gamepad would have nothing to complain about. Because of that their is nothing to lose.

We are debating silly abstract concepts when we aha it's not like the 2ds or it's like kinect or it's like wii motion plus. Bottom line no one would have reason to complain if they did it, it wouldn't kill gamepad support. That's a wildly exaggerated irrational fear.[...]

How is it irrelevant? If you want a new SKU with the intent of selling more units you need to work out who you're selling it do. Does the person who is after the "non gamepadey" games really care about price? If price is the main concern is it the concern of the CoD fanatic or is it the Mum & Dad who's buying it for their kid? Is it not the lower end consumer who would be more interested in the GamePad? How is this "wildly exaggerated irrational fear"? This is just me asking a question about who you're trying to sell this SKU to. If you can't answer it then concede that you might be wrong rather than flailing about like a madman.

Making random SKUs is not a solution especially if your going out there from the start talking about how the new SKU might completely fail. A new SKU should at the very least make sense on paper.

It's not really about a consumer choice. It's about brand integrity and the importance of having a product that works 100% right out of the box. Nintendo users are not PC users. You can't trust the entire consumer base to just buy the parts they need for the function they want. In the console business, if you design an OS and functionality around the use of a peripheral, you need to include that peripheral in the box.

Sort of like how Nintendo decided to put a Wiimote in the box of all of their Wiis instead of the Classic Controller. Though in that case, the Wii was a system designed to be dirt cheap and make its money on software and peripherals.

@blaisedinsd
It doesn't really matter. They aren't going to do it. They need the GamePad to get a second screen into people's hands.

Just look at PS4 and Xbox One. Second screens are optional for those. As a result, not everything uses them that well. Someone sees that and thinks, well, I don't need that second screen stuff. As a result, no one really takes advantage, and no one feels as inclined to make the effort if it won't immediately be there as a core mechanic. Those 2 consoles making it optional is the best example of how it doesn't matter as much, unless the console is heavily focused on that aspect.

Seeing as Nintendo has specifically designed Wii U to incorporate the GamePad(I seriously can't stress this enough and have said it multiple times, but you still don't get it), they won't be making it optional to make a few extra QUICK $, especially considering they could sell more software to their current customers, in the time being.

ZombiU, Lego City, Art Academy, Panarama View, Wii Street U, Scribblenauts, and most of the system features like the internet browser and Miiverse make heavy use of the 2 screen setup. We already know that you think it's not that many, but it would arguably take more time and money to spend on reversing and changing support on that software, and they can't on some, because some software already requires it. At that point, they would already be losing as much money as they could have gained by continuing down the path they are already on. They could be making more money on selling that software with the GamePad included, because it immediately gives more value to software, and having some games require it while having it be optional, will leave that potential revenue now relying on another marketing ploy to get people to buy the GamePad separately. It's making more work than it has to be, while neglecting any amount of progress they have already made when saying that this new system sports 2 screens that you want.

Then we have the "well, people will buy it separately if it's compelling". Realize that that still applies with the way things currently are with the GamePad. If they make EVEN ONE piece of software that leaves a user with no doubt that the GamePad adds to their experience, it doesn't matter whether those who didn't buy are still not compelled, because those who bought it are, and that's arguably more important than trying to appeal to someone who's on the fence.

It would be perfect if everyone saw that the GamePad is beneficiary to the console, but it's not worth making it optional, because then that contradicts the idea that you need it as part of the console.

Unless you can understand the points that everyone else and I have made, this thread is literally pointless. You asked a question, we answered. If the answer isn't good enough for you, then you asked the wrong people.

It's not really about a consumer choice. It's about brand integrity and the importance of having a product that works 100% right out of the box. Nintendo users are not PC users. You can't trust the entire consumer base to just buy the parts they need for the function they want. In the console business, if you design an OS and functionality around the use of a peripheral, you need to include that peripheral in the box

Even with a pre-built PC you get everything you need in the box. Unless you're specifically buying just the tower then the basic pre-built machine will come with keyboard, mouse and monitor. The spec is all over the shop bug generally speaking if you buy an "office" machine it'll run any of the "office" style software you can throw at it. If you buy a "gaming" machine and throw any game at it it'll be able to run that game. If it didn't you'd take it back and complain.

Needless to say the expectation with the Wii U is that when you buy a Wii U you can run Wii U games. Any disruption to that will cause confusion. So any move that causes a slit in the types of games that can be run on one SKU and not the other should not be taken lightly. So far the only reason we've heard for it is that the price will be lower..... nothing more.......

I think the discussion has run it's course. We understand each other's view points and disagree.Really all I ask you to consider is if it happens what reason would you have to panic? Sure the internet would be singing the gamepad is dead, but if they have miyamoto working on a single player gamepad experience we might get a killer wii music sequel and that will show them.

i.e. "I'm losing thie argument but let me just get that last jab in there"
Classy

The point was not the success or failure of psp go, I was only pointing out another example out of many from the beginning of the console industry where a company did not care about releasing something that split a userbase or played a sub library of games. Game boy pocket had compatibility issues. The Nes too loader did too. Ps2 slim as well. It's hard to find an example where it didn't happen. Wii u is already split among myriad controller options and varying support.

The fact is that the PSPGo's lack of software support had nothing to do with the hardware itself. It had more to do with the fact that the thing didn't sell because of the price point. It was more expensive than the standard PSP and lacked the ability to play games in the physical format. Completely different to what you're saying here because it was physically capable of playing every single PSP game with zero alterations.

The NES top-loader was a revision late in the life of the NES along the lines of the Wii Mini. It's actually the better system to get because it's less prone to faults. The GameBoy Pocket I remember my sister had, I don't remember any problems with that. They changed the link-cable size which was then carried over to the GBC but other than that I can't think of anything. The PS2 Slim I know nothing about but googling just now I can't see anything noteworthy.

I can't see any example where any company has done something of this scale for even backwards compatibility with a new console let alone a console revision or a little bundle change.

The person who is wanting the cheaper SKU is more likely to want the GamePad-centric games, the cheaper SKU therefore needs the GamePad more than the others do. The sort of gamer who's not sold on the idea is more than happy to pay more, they don't care about the price anywhere near as much. The people who rage about how bad the GamePad is are the same people who buy a game every single month of the year. So if there is to be an SKU that appeals to the gamer not sold on the GamePad it should be an SKU that comes at a premium but includes more than one controller.

This is all irrelevant. Letting consumer choice dictate the success of the gamepad and the console seperaterly is the smartest thing to do at this point.

I don't see a risk. The 1 screen sku may not succeed because if it's lesser library of games, but anyone buying it would have nothing to complain about. People who bought a wii u with a gamepad would have nothing to complain about. Because of that their is nothing to lose.

We are debating silly abstract concepts when we aha it's not like the 2ds or it's like kinect or it's like wii motion plus. Bottom line no one would have reason to complain if they did it, it wouldn't kill gamepad support. That's a wildly exaggerated irrational fear.[...]

How is it irrelevant? If you want a new SKU with the intent of selling more units you need to work out who you're selling it do. Does the person who is after the "non gamepadey" games really care about price? If price is the main concern is it the concern of the CoD fanatic or is it the Mum & Dad who's buying it for their kid? Is it not the lower end consumer who would be more interested in the GamePad? How is this "wildly exaggerated irrational fear"? This is just me asking a question about who you're trying to sell this SKU to. If you can't answer it then concede that you might be wrong rather than flailing about like a madman.

Making random SKUs is not a solution especially if your going out there from the start talking about how the new SKU might completely fail. A new SKU should at the very least make sense on paper.

1. I don't think it's a classless jab. Wii music was said to be a core concept they had as part of the original plan for wii. It overall was a quirky game with limited appeal and I feel all gamepad required features are in the same category. Wii music 2 may not be what they come up with but I feel whatever they do come up with will have the same type of limited appeal. The games that require the gamepad now are like this, the gp features are quirky things with limited appeal. Lego city and games that try the gp add quirkiness but not appeal. Lego city gains more value if it allows off tv play instead of having those quirky features making it not capable of off tv play. Off tv play is the #1 feature of the gp in my view, and while I enjoy other features I recognize them as quirky and not something that adds to the appeal. Overall gp features are not integral to the wii u experience and I don't see this changing.

2. I have heard the Nes top loader can't play castlevania 3 and has worse video output. Overall I understand your argument about the incompatibility, I simply disagree that optional gamepad playing a sub-library is an critical issue that makes it a bad idea. Gp features have shown to be quirky things that are not integral to the gaming experience. Games where it is integral are basically quirky games that have failed to sell the system, they make more sense as kinect sports a game that requires an add on to play. Games coming that have potential to sell the system don't depend on gp features. Those points lead me to believe the wii u does better as an hd wii sold on the strength of its games than requiring a 33% markup because of a non-essential add on. The add on has proven to be non-essential to this point and the future looks to continue the trend.

3. This is a false dilemma. It's basically a decision making process for purchase. The gp bundle being more appealing is not a problem and that all this point is addressing. It ignores people who would prefer to save $50-100 to get a wii u without the gp. Whether or not you see the value is irrelevant. Lower cost option helps the console, let the consumer make the choice if they want to spend more for off tv play and quirky gp features. Off tv play required on all games going forward makes sense as something that increases the value of the gp and enables "1s" compatibility. The budget market didn't care their wii didn't have a gp, they may not care if their wii u does either. Enabling gp buttons on wii mode for off tv play is an enhancement that may make them see the appeal of the gp more.

I still don't understand why anyone would want a Wii U without the Gamepad. Just get a PS3 or a 360 if you have to have a cheap Game system. Sure it won't have Nintendo games, but if you just want certain games, then the price isn't the issue (most people like that would simply save up), nor is the gamepad since those certain games are going to utilize the Gamepad in some way, if not require it. You're paying less to get less. Unless you're desparate, that's not what most people want.